I would say it depends on several factors. First, the proposal has to go through a legislative process before it is is actually implemented. Second, whatever benefits it may bring have to be analyzed in order to attain sufficient data to even begin the conversation about implementing such a proposal in other states. Lastly, it is clear to me that pharmaceutical corporations would selectively choose measured facts to push on media outlets and have lobbyists influence media government leaders by offering to donate campaign funds for whatever position they may be running for as is often the case with big businesses and their strategies when it comes to government laws and regulations.
There are a few other more political and cultural factors but I purposefully omitted them so as not to break any forum rules.
The article you presented about insulin and U.S. citizens going to Canada for treatment at a fraction of the cost was interesting. Coincidentally, it is not uncommon for U.S. citizens living in cities near the border to go to Mexico for medical treatment, whether it be dental or even surgical in some cases.
What I found interesting about the article you shared was specifically the part about acquiring insulin from Canada. It leaves me wondering where exactly are our prescription drugs coming from, why these corporations are allowed to find tax loopholes, and why the prices on these drugs are not regulated to at least be similar to the value of the currency of a country in comparison to the United States, or in simple terms, why are they allowed to extravagantly raise drug prices in the U.S. for the same drug that can be purchased elsewhere without any real repercussions? From my understanding, many prescription drugs are produced outside the country and so U.S. laws have little effect.
I honestly think it is because certain corporations hold a near monopoly on the market for the drugs they manufacture. My thoughts are that if the proposal in California is put into effect, there will be an agenda paid for by big pharmacological companies that will portray proposals such as this as somehow negative by implying that the government wants citizens to take “its” drugs and somehow that is an attack on capitalism and a free market economy, the idea that somehow the “deep state” big government wants to control what people take and do. Similar to what they’ve done with arguing government provided healthcare as a socialist idea as if it is somehow an attack on democracy and the republic of the U.S.
In other words, companies like Johnson + Johnson own a huge chunk of brand name pharmaceutical drugs (and a ■■■■ ton of everyday products marketed for hygiene). And corporations like that have enough money and leverage to not only influence legislation but also enough money to push an agenda on any particular cultural group in society. If you delve into it, Johnson + Johnson probably owns more than half the products in your bathroom.
The Unitrd States of America is a beautiful country where many civil liberties and freedoms are allowed for its citizens including the right to vote and run for office. It does come to a point though in which corporations fund campaigns not only for those running with a favorable view but also with the idea of a favor for favor. One other thing, really, I have never really heard of a working class person running for the presidency. It’s usually people who already have family wealth that run. But hey, anyone can be president… so how are members of the electoral college elected?
“And boom goes the dynamite!”